Cause you're a troll. (Destiny)

by Ragashingo , Official DBO Cryptarch, Sunday, May 31, 2015, 22:43 (3466 days ago) @ Kermit

. We all should give everyone a fresh benefit of a doubt everyday, but we know each other well--some conversations have been going on for years!

You know, as nice as that sounds, I disagree. I rather like the idea that we are accountable both to what we say now and what we have said in the past. I like the idea that there are people out there willing to call me on something. I'm happy people will speak up if I'm inconsistent or if I go too far in an argument, or if I'm just plain wrong. Somehow, to me, giving people a clean slate everyday means ignoring them as people. Because while we sometimes respond to their past negatives, remembering what someone has said or done also lets us respond to them in the context of their past positives. But, when doing either we should be very sure to keep our responses grounded in what they are saying now.

Second, I also don't go out of my way to try and reply to practically everything a particular person posts who have I history of disagreeing with. Usually it's specific topics (weapon balancing, first instance).

I would also advise that Ragashingo ignore Cody now and then.

And, to me, this is the hard part. How many times should I ignore someone when they say something I disagree with? Heck, how many times have I done so only to have my inactions go unnoticed? In context: Should I respond to Cody 1/10th as often? 1/100th? Where should the line be drawn?

Someone once said something like: "The only proper response to bad speech (meaning lies, inaccuracies, slander, or whatnot) is more speech (as in speaking up and engaging and opposing the bad speech by voicing you own opinions... which are hopefully not lies or other bad speech.) As I have said in the past, that's how I treat things around here. I understand constant nagging and quibbling can be tiresome, but, as I see it, everyone should be encouraged to voice an opinion and they should do so knowing that others are similarly encouraged to respond to that opinion. Criticizing someone for the act of responding just seems so frivolous to me, if that makes any sense. Criticism should instead be directed at the contents of the response, not the act of the response itself.

P.S. All the above was typed in a happy, conversational tone. My apologies if it reads otherwise. :)